US v. Jasper Buck

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00029-GLR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999946389].. [16-4150]

Appeal: 16-4150

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4150

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASPER BUCK,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cr-00029-GLR-1)

Submitted:

September 20, 2016

Decided:

October 13, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Sean R. Delaney,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4150

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jasper

Buck

appeals

his

sentence

of

120

imprisonment after pleading guilty to mail fraud.

months’

Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.
We

ordinarily

deferential

review

a

criminal

abuse-of-discretion

sentence

standard.”

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

“under

Gall

v.

a

United

We “first ensure that the

district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as

failing

to

calculate

Guidelines

range,

§ 3553(a)

[(2012)]

explain

the

. . .

chosen

(or

failing

factors,

improperly
to

. . .

sentence.”

calculating)

consider
or

Id.

the

failing

at

51.

[18

to
If

the

U.S.C.]

adequately

there

is

no

significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s
substantive

reasonableness

under

“the

totality

of

the

circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.”

Id.

Buck argues that the district court procedurally erred by
failing

to

address

sufficiently

his

arguments

at

sentencing

regarding his age and health, and the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Our review of

the record reveals that the district court carefully considered
Buck’s

arguments

and

sufficiently

explained

its

placing greater weight on other sentencing factors.

reasons

for

Buck also

claims that the district court abused its discretion by imposing
2

Appeal: 16-4150

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

a 120-month sentence, which represented an upward variance from
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that the
district court did not act unreasonably in deciding to impose a
variant sentence or determining the extent of the variance.

See

United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944 (4th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3